Employees are more comfortable telling co-workers that their zipper is undone than to point out any other embarrassing gaffes, according to a recent CareerBuilder survey. Two-thirds of employees said they’d tell a peer about an undone fly, while half would do the same to a higher-level co-worker.

Lowest on the comfort scale? Discussing personal hygiene. Just 28% would tell co-workers they needed a shower. The number’s just 11% when the dirty employee is higher in the ranks.

The rest of the list:

1. You have food in your teeth (66% for a same-level co-worker, 49% for someone higher)
2. You have something in your nose (51% and 33% )
3. You have a stain on your clothes (51% and 34%)
4. Your hair is messy (33% and 13%)
5. You need a breath mint (33% and 14%)
6. Your clothes aren’t appropriate for the workplace (32% and 10%)

What conversations are you most uncomfortable having with your peers? How about folks higher up in the company? Let us know in the comments section below.

Here are the behaviors that could indicate a top performer has one foot out the door:

1. Change in attitude – For example, a top team player might withdraw and stop helping others.
2. Sloppiness – Formerly top-notch employees will make more errors when they know they’re leaving.
3. Solitude – The employee might start to distance himself from others, for example, by eating lunch alone.
4. More absences – Workers headed for the door will take “sick days” to attend interviews.
5. Formal attire – Employees will also use lunch to go to interviews, which normally will require them to dress nicer than usual.
6. Increased Web use – Departing workers are less inclined to do actual work, and they’ll spend a lot of time on online job boards.

That’s the lesson sure to be learned by a Tennessee auto parts supplier that’s currently fighting two disability discrimination lawsuits.

In the most recent case, brought by the EEOC, the agency is arguing the company tested for legal prescription drugs such as painkillers. According to the suit, the company fired or refused to hire people with “disabilities” (their prescriptions) and failed to keep information learned from the tests confidential, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

A previous suit was filed on behalf of seven employees by one worker who suffered from chronic back pain, depression and bipolar disorder, was fired after testing positive for “certain chemicals” (her prescription drugs).

She’d never been cited for safety violations, and, she’s arguing, the medicine didn’t affect her ability to work.

Courts will normally let companies use prescription medication as a reason not to hire someone only when there’s a reasonable belief it’ll affect the candidate’s work or cause a safety risk.

We’ll see what the judge says this time.

Cite: EEOC v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc. and Bates v. Dura Automotive Systems, Inc.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the so-called ‘no-match’ rules (which told employers what to do if the Social Security number provided by a new hire didn’t match the number in the feds’ database) in 2007. Controversy and legal battles have prevented the rule from ever going into effect.

Now, it’s officially off the books. A regulation was published in the Federal Register on October 7 rescinding the rule.

The DHS announced it will focus on promoting the use of E-Verify as the mechanism for preventing the employment of illegal immigrants.

Soon, they warn, there’s going to be an explosion in the number of IT-related jobs available, making it tough for companies to hire and keep employees with tech skills.

The reason: a demand from the federal government for more computerization in the health industry. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act earmarked $19 billion in incentives for hospitals and doctors’ offices to use electronic records, and laid out financial penalties for those that don’t make the switch by 2015.

The feds are also expected to increase spending in other IT areas, such as energy and green building projects.

The upshot: a lot of IT job openings appearing suddenly. Estimates for new health IT positions range from 41,000 to 200,000, according to Dr. William Hersh of Oregon Health & Science University.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates demand for network systems and data communications analytics to go up 53% by 2016. Demand for other IT skills, such as database administration, will rise at least 20%, BLS says.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend employees with swine flu stay home for seven days or until they’ve been symptom-free for 24 hours, whichever’s longer, according to a recent Chicago Tribune article.

Seven or more days is a long absence, especially in this economy. Many managers will probably be reluctant to allow that much time off. But they need to understand how low productivity could drop if the flu spreads to several workers.

Some of the ways the Tribune reports companies are dealing with the issue:

1. Financial company CME Group, Inc., has beefed up its telecommuting capacity so more employees can work from home if necessary.
2. In addition to offering seasonal flu shots and adding hand sanitizer dispensers in its offices, Kraft developed a special emergency response plan that includes options such as bringing employees from other areas to plants hard hit by absenteeism.
3. Ravinia Plumbing and Heating, a company of fewer than 40 employees, has cross-trained workers so operations won’t be disrupted if some folks are absent.

Has your company taken any steps to deal with the anticipated swine flu outbreak? Let us know in the comments section below.

A four-year study, recently published in the Harvard Business Review, looked at what would happen to employees when they were required to take vacation time.

Employees of 12 consulting teams at the Boston Consulting Group were forced to take scheduled time off each week, ranging from a full day of vacation to not working after 6 p.m. one night a week (the consultants frequently work long hours after they get home).

The results: The benefits of mandatory time off went beyond the obvious prevention of burnout. Employees said they came to back to work refreshed after a short break and were more productive. But, perhaps more importantly, teams said the required time off forced them to come up with ways to work more efficiently, and now their work gets done more quickly.

Few companies are likely to actually require employees to take vacation time. But as the study shows, managers might want to avoid giving employees the impression they should never take time off.

It’s not as big a deal as it used to be, according to a recent Society for Human Resources Management survey. Nearly all (90%) of HR managers say online degrees are viewed more favorably than they were five years ago. And individual courses taken online are as credible as traditional courses, according to 68% of HR managers.

Still, more often than not, companies would rather hire someone who went to a traditional college: 63% said, everything else being equal, their organization would hire someone who went to a traditional college over someone with an online degree.

What’s your company’s take on applicants with online degrees? Does it make a difference to you? Let us know your opinion in the comments section below.

During a pay dispute, an employee in Gerona, Spain, called his boss a “son of a bitch.” He then called the manager “crazy” as he stormed out of the office.

Think someone in your company could do that without getting fired? This manager didn’t think so either.

But a judge thought differently. The employee sued for wrongful termination (like many European countries, Spain doesn’t have “at-will” employment) and won.

Said the judge: “The social degradation of language has caused the expressions used by the plaintiff to be commonly used in many situations, especially arguments,” the Telegraph reports. Therefore, it wasn’t a serious enough offense to warrant termination.

The court ordered the company reinstate the employee or pay him the equivalent of $9,500.

Here’s what happened:

An employee told his boss he needed FMLA leave to care for his newborn son, who was in the hospital. He had worked for the company for less than a year, but would have been employed for 15 months by the time he’d use the leave.

The boss said he’d look into it. However, before any decision was made about his FMLA request, the company decided to let him go, citing an inadequate skill set.

The employee sued, claiming he was fired because he requested FMLA leave.

The company tried to have the case thrown out — the employee wasn’t eligible for FMLA when he was terminated, so he had no standing to sue.

But the court didn’t buy it. In addition to people who use FMLA, the law covers employees who “attempt” to use it — including people who ask for FMLA leave but are turned down. Those employees can still make a case for retaliation under the law.

That means managers need to be careful that documentation backs up any action taken against employees who’ve asked for FMLA leave — even if those employees weren’t eligible.

Cite: Reynolds v. Inter-Industry Conference on Auto Collision Repair